Bank of New York v. Conway
Decision Date | 13 December 2006 |
Docket Number | No. CV-02 0815603S.,CV-02 0815603S. |
Citation | 50 Conn.Sup. 189,916 A.2d 130 |
Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
Parties | BANK OF NEW YORK as Trustee v. John E. CONWAY et al. |
John E. Conway and Kathleen McGurkin, pro se, the defendants.
The plaintiff, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide), brings this mortgage foreclosure action against the named defendant, John E. Conway, and codefendant Kathleen McGurkin. On March 2, 2000, the defendants applied to American Loan Centers (American) for a refinance mortgage loan to be secured by their home at 15 Westridge Drive in Simsbury. On March 22, 2000, the closing took place, and the defendants signed a promissory note in the amount of $223,500. At the time of the closing, the named defendant did not have any ownership interest in the property, and did not sign the mortgage deed. On March 27, 2000, the defendants signed and returned a document certifying that they had not exercised their right to cancel the transaction. Thereafter, on March 28, 2000, the codefendant executed a quitclaim deed conveying the property to herself and the named defendant, who added his signature to the mortgage his wife had signed on March 22, 2000.
On April 27, 2001, American assigned the loan to the plaintiff. The defendants made regular payments on the loan until December 31, 2001, after which time they have failed to make any payments. On February 4, 2002, the plaintiff sent the defendants a demand letter notifying them of their default and the loan's pending acceleration. The demand letter gave the defendants until March 6, 2002 to cure their default. On March 12, 2002, the named defendant mailed to the plaintiff a document entitled "notice of right to cancel," that he had received at closing in March of 2000, purportedly rescinding the transaction. The plaintiff did not void the credit transaction or return any money to the defendants.
On April 3, 2002, the named plaintiff, Bank of New York as Trustee, filed the present action to foreclose on the mortgage. On April 2, 2003, the defendants filed an answer, special defenses and counterclaims. This court substituted Countrywide as the proper plaintiff on May 22, 2006, and on May 23, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to liability only, on the following grounds: that there is no factual dispute as to ownership, default and notices under the mortgage and note; that the defendants did not validly exercise their rights to rescind the transaction; and, that the defendants' counterclaims are barred by the relevant statute of limitations. The plaintiff has submitted a memorandum of law accompanied by certified and properly authenticated exhibits in support of its motion. On August 21, 2006, the defendants filed a memorandum of law in opposition.1
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Barrett v. Montesano, 269 Conn. 787, 791, 849 A.2d 839 (2004). (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 527, 556, 791 A.2d 489 (2002).
Socha v. Bordeau, 277 Conn. 579, 585-86, 893 A.2d 422 (2006).
New Haven v. Pantani, supra, 89 Conn.App. at 679, 874 A.2d 849.
"A summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone. . . ." Practice Book § 17-50. Additionally, "[s]ummary judgment may be granted where the claim is barred by the statute of limitations." Doty v. Mucci, 238 Conn. 800, 806, 679 A.2d 945 (1996).
In its memorandum of law, the plaintiff argues that it has established a prima facie case for mortgage foreclosure because there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding ownership of the note and mortgage, because the defendants are delinquent on the mortgage, and because the plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to foreclosure. "In a mortgage foreclosure action, [t]o make out its prima facie case, [the foreclosing party has] to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it [is] the owner of the note and mortgage and that [the mortgagee has] defaulted on the note." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Franklin Credit Management Corp. v. Nicholas, 73 Conn.App. 830, 838, 812 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 937, 815 A.2d 136 (2003). Furthermore, the foreclosing party must demonstrate that all conditions precedent to foreclosure, as mandated by the note and mortgage, have been satisfied. See Bank of America, FSB v. Hanlon, 65 Conn.App. 577, 581, 783 A.2d 88 (2001).
In the present case, the plaintiff has submitted with its memorandum in support of summary judgment properly authenticated copies of the promissory note and the mortgage, each signed by both defendants. The plaintiff has also submitted an authenticated copy of the notice of default and acceleration that was mailed to the defendants. The defendants' memorandum of law in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment does not contest that the defendants defaulted on the mortgage, that the default has not presently been cured, and that the plaintiff owns both the note and the mortgage.2 Similarly, the defendants do not contest that they received and signed a document stating that they did not exercise their right to cancel the transaction on March 27, 2000. The plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to the ownership of the note and mortgage, and as to the defendants' status in default on the loan.
The plaintiff has also submitted evidence that it satisfied conditions precedent to foreclosure by timely mailing a notice of default and acceleration to the defendants. The note signed by the defendants provides in pertinent part: "If I am in default, the Note Holder may send me a written notice telling me that if I do not pay the overdue amount by a certain date, the Note Holder may require me to pay immediately the full amount of principal which has not been paid and all the interest that I owe on that amount." Similarly, the mortgage's arbitration rider states that: The notice of acceleration mailed to the defendants on February 4, 2002 stated that the defendants were in "serious default" of $3894.45. The notice specifically instructed the defendants how to cure the default, and gave the defendants until March 6, 2002—more than one month—to cure the default. The plaintiff has satisfied the conditions precedent to foreclosing on the defendants' mortgage, and the defendants have not submitted evidence to the contrary....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Edwards v. McMillen Capital, LLC
...is subject to the federal TILA ... to avoid duplication in administration and enforcement of statutes." Bank of New York v. Conway , 50 Conn. Supp. 189, 197-98, 916 A.2d 130 (2006). The Connecticut TILA incorporates the federal statute of limitations, specifying that an action must be broug......
-
White v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc.
...in a memorandum in opposition to summary judgment” when “that theory is not pleaded in the complaint”); Bank of New York v. Conway, 50 Conn.Supp. 189, 198 n. 5, 916 A.2d 130 (2006) (same); see also Santiago v. Hospital of St. Raphael's, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV–05–4010822–S (ren......
-
Bentley v. Greensky Trade Credit, LLC
...law interpreting relevant provisions of TILA applies “where there is an absence of Connecticut authority.” Bank of New York v. Conway , 50 Conn.Supp. 189, 916 A.2d 130, 137 (2006). Ms. Bentley has identified no salient difference between Connecticut and federal law. Accordingly, the Court w......
-
Edwards v. McMillen Capital, LLC
...TILA is subject to the federal TILA...to avoid duplication in administration and enforcement of statutes." Bank of New York v. Conway, 50 Conn. Supp. 189, 197-98 (2006). The Connecticut TILA incorporates the federal statute of limitations, specifying that an action must be brought within th......